from the well,-look-at-that dept

One of the things that we've found odd about the decade and a half history of the legacy entertainment industry seeking (often successfully) to shut down a variety of new platforms, is that if you actually looked at the artists who didn't completely freak out at these new services and who recognized what the new services were (better platforms for distribution and promotion, rather than the end of all civilization and culture as we know it), you quickly find that, if done right, the platforms could be used to those artists' advantage. We saw artists use the original Napster to their advantage, only to see it shut down. Ditto for MP3.com, Grokster, Kazaa, Limewire, Megaupload and more. Plenty of artists have discussed how incredibly useful The Pirate Bay has been as a platform for distribution and promotion.

Now, admittedly, many of these companies and services were shut down for some form of copyright infringement or inducement to infringement. So, you can argue that they were illegal. But if we went back even further, we saw the same complaints against many other platforms including the radio, cable TV, the VCR, the DVR, the MP3 player and online video services like YouTube. And yet, every one of those has survived, and they have turned out to be very important parts of the market. In fact, you can look and see how each of those helped expand and grow markets, even as they were decried as being tools of infringement when they first came on the scene.

This is why I'm so fascinated by the artists who are the early adopters -- who jump onto these platforms in the early days and show how they can be used to the artist's own advantage. Because it's through those people that we learn how these platforms, be they tools of infringement or not, can quite possibly help artists much more than hurt them -- if those artists learn to use the tools correctly.

All of that is prelude to this case study, concerning a band called Quiet Company that teamed up to take part in Grooveshark's new Artist Development project, in which Grooveshark would see if it could help "break a band" via the internet. Grooveshark, of course, is a company that is currently being sued by a large chunk of the recording industry for its music player. In talking to various artists about it-- even those who often are more willing to experiment with new platforms -- I've seen many artists really dislike Grooveshark. But, clearly, it has built up a giant, loyal and engaged user-base. And, as always, it seems that, if done right, artists could embrace that to a positive effect, which is appears to be what happened with Quiet Company. First up, if you'd like to hear some of their music, you can click the widget below:

I spoke to Quiet Company's manager, who told me that the band was being courted by various record labels, but they quickly realized that they were getting offered deals that weren't the most "artist friendly," and that they had no desire to work with a record label unless they knew that the band was the one with the leverage. So, when Grooveshark approached them, noting that Quiet Company seemed to be doing quite well on Grooveshark, and that they wanted to try to help "break" the band online, the band thought it was a great idea. In terms of what Grooveshark did for the band, it included promoting the band more heavily within Grooveshark and in other places, promoting YouTube videos (more on that below), promoting tours with "tour skins" in locations where the band was heading, highlighting releases, doing promos, contests and the like. They also did some more traditional promotions work, including pushing college radio and festivals, while also finding brand sponsors.

There are a number of interesting tidbits in the case study looking at an entire year or so in which Grooveshark worked to help Quiet Company. One thing that's important to note, of course, is that the band didn't just rely on Grooveshark, but worked to use Grooveshark in combination with other platforms to get attention. Grooveshark seemed to drive steady growth in part by using its own tools to help drive growth elsewhere, such as YouTube. Take a look, for example, at the following timeline:

You can see that there's a massive spike coming when YouTube engagement ads ran. Those ads are something that Grooveshark launched last year, to help promote artists, and it looks like that clearly had a pretty big impact. The "ads" ask Grooveshark users to view a portion of a music video to get to use the rest of the site ad free for a period of time, and that massively increased the YouTube views for the band. The timing did also coincide with last year's SXSW Music, where the band played (and got significant press attention -- Time, NPR Music, Billboard -- which certainly helped), but the band says that Grooveshark was instrumental in getting the necessary exposure.

Furthermore, a closer look at Grooveshark promotions, shows that they also impacted things like visits to the website and Facebook likes.

But, perhaps more importantly, the end result of this experiment was that the band started making more money with a much broader, international fanbase. The band had a popular following, locally in Texas, where it was from, but had much less support as they got further from home. On Facebook and YouTube, the "top cities" were all in Texas. However, that changed drastically, leading to the ability to tour more widely. After the partnership, rather than just cities in Texas, they had big followings (via Facebook) in Bogota, Sao Paulo and Barcelona, among many other places. The top countries for followers if you looked at YouTube and Facebook included not just the US, but the UK, Canada, Germany, Brazil and Spain. The band is getting ready to perform outside the US for the first time.

And, not surprisingly, with a broader fan base, their touring revenue shot up as well.

All in all, it's an interesting case study of a band that had a loyal local following, but hadn't "broken." Then it embraced a platform like Grooveshark and to see if it helped or hurt the band. It certainly seems like the band is in a much better position after working with Grooveshark than before. Even if you make the case that their success had nothing to do with Grooveshark, but was due to other factors, it certainly doesn't look like working with Grooveshark harmed the band, as some would imply.

In talking to the band's manager, he repeatedly pointed out that the exposure from Grooveshark made all the difference in the world, and took the band from having a loyal and devoted local following to a band that really had a big following in many places around the globe. He pointed out that the key, in his mind, was that this was a promotional platform, with the focus being on building up a fanbase who loved the music, and to then tour to make money to support that. When asked if there were any "lessons learned" or regrets, the one thing he noted is that they should have been better prepared to go out on tour as soon as things started to break. He felt that they could have done a bit more if they were ready to tour more widely earlier last year.

Something else really interesting came out of the case study and the discussion: after all of this, Quiet Company actually got a private investment from a group of fans to continue what they're doing. That is, rather than signing with a record label, a huge fan actually approached the band and asked them about investing in them, and set up a deal (with a few other fans) that is better than a record deal in that it's very artist friendly. Quiet Company's manager told me that this fan has been a big supporter of the band for a long time -- often buying a bunch of tickets to their shows and just giving them out to a bunch of her friends, and they were pleasantly surprised when that turned into her investing directly in the band.

Separately, he notes that the band believes strongly that this kind of thing was a result of the band really working hard to connect closely with their fans, and that with this greater exposure, it lets them try to do that on a larger scale.

This isn't, of course, to say that every artist should automatically jump on board with Grooveshark. It's just yet another case study in a growing list that shows that where artists carefully and smartly construct a broad strategy that leverages various tools to help promote and distribute their works, combined with connecting with the fans, they can have really compelling success stories. Even as some decry those platforms for claimed copyright infringement, it seems like these platforms can be helpful in doing the most important thing: building a fanbase. And, from there, the band needs to work to connect with that fanbase, and give them ways to support the band. It would be great if, rather than attacking such platforms over and over again, we spent more time like this, looking at ways that artists can use various platforms to their own advantage to succeed.

from the it's-CwF-and-RtB-all-over-again dept

California dubstep/bass artist Bassnectar has built a solid following over the past decade, culminating in appearances at major music festivals, including Lollapalooza, Bonnaroo and the Ultra Music Festival. Despite his loaded touring schedule, Bassnectar (a.k.a. Lorin Ashton) still keeps in touch with his fans (30K on Soundcloud, 550K on Facebook) via his regular Fan Bass Q&A feature.

An anonymous fan recently asked a question that's on the minds of artists all over the creative spectrum:

What do you think about the people that leak and download your music (or any music) without paying?

When we sent out promos of "Divergent Spectrum" we knew without a doubt it would get leaked. It is kind of an honor that enough people care, that they want to get it and share it as soon as possible. Instead of worrying about it, we just figured "Let's let people decide what they want to do." If they want to support me, let's make it easy for them to do so. We created a presale option, and added a stack of exclusive Bonus Material (loops, bits, outtakes, sketches, ...kind of like the "Special Features" on a DVD) as a gift to everyone who did this, knowing it was an act of love and support for them to pre-order something they could just download for free.

There are two key points to this statement, points that other artists (or more often, their default representatives -- label spokesmen, royalty collection agencies, etc. ) tend to ignore when discussing piracy. One: a leaked album is a sign of interest. Very few people will track down a leaked album from an artist they have no interest in. Two: make it easy for fans to support the artist, preferably directly. The more paranoid you are about leaked albums and "lost sales," the less likely it is that your music is easily found and purchased.

Bassnectar goes on from there, letting his fans (both paying and non-paying) know how thrilled he is with being Bassnectar:

For me, I am so incredibly grateful for everything in my life right now, i can't really ask for more. We have sold out nearly every single show in the past year, and the legion of bass heads is growing every day. I am honored that people want to explore my music. I am honored that they want to share it with their friends. I am not worried about being supported, because I feel so much support each day, in so many different forms.

On principle though, I do think it is important for ALL ARTISTS to make it easy for people to support what they love. And it is important for those who love the art to decide how they can support art and artists, and allow it to continue.

There it is again: "make it easy for people to support what they love." Hitching your music to major label's whims, proprietary systems, various rights agencies and digital rights management "tools" does nothing but make it harder for fans to support you, much less share the experience with others.

He also hammers home a point made over and over again here at Techdirt: spending time and energy attempting to prevent piracy will only leave you tired and frustrated. The music world doesn't work the way it used to, relying on "top down" distribution. At the same time, he makes a genuine request: if you love an artist, find a way to support them.

In 2011, art and culture exist as DIGITAL MEDIA, and it is naive to think it will not be leaked or downloaded or shared or "stolen" repeatedly. It is just a fact of life. People need to decide for themselves if they want to steal or not. And if they *DO* then they can decide if and how to follow up with support. If you download leaked music, and you enjoy it, why not go buy an official copy? It seems fair. You are not obligated to do this, it is just a choice. Do you enjoy the artist? IF YOU ENJOY, THEN SUPPORT. If not, then simply carry on. It takes a LOT of time and energy for artists to create their craft, and even more time and energy for them to prepare a release, and to distribute it. You can support what you love in many ways, and in a sense you vote with your dollar.

It's that simple. An artist's best weapons against piracy aren't takedown notices and legislation. The best weapon is still an honest connection with your fans (paying or not). Simply talking to them directly about you and your work does more for your bottom line than a million anti-piracy screeds. Even better, give them a reason to buy and as many ways to buy as possible.

I'll leave you with this choice clip of Bassnectar in action, sporting the finest head of heavy metal hair to ever find itself in front of a tableful of electronic noisemakers: